Dr. Steve Horowitz says “No. This is just a myth.” Here’s his explanation. It grates me when one behaves as if he or she is clearing something up but he or she doesn’t make the distinctions required to indicate just what it is that needs to be cl read more

After readingÂ this, I couldn’t help but laugh a little to myself. While I can certainly appreciate some part of Palin’s message about providing a positive message to young women caught in such a difficult situation, and I share the desire that something as read more

Background So, there is some debate in developer circles about whether programming is an art, a science, or both. Recently, I have heard the word Code Craftsman and even Code Artist used by folks in the blogosphere. On the one hand, there is little argument that written read more

In the insurance industry, the idea that the protection insurance offers the consumer promotes a more reckless attitude on the part of said consumer is referred to as “moral hazard”. Apparently, since we have the material possessions in our homes insured against burglary, we are less likely to lock our doors for example. While I consider this an issue of contention, I do see competitive insurance as a for profit endeavor to be a serious moral hazard.

All forms of insurance seek to achieve the same end. Take a catastrophic event like a fire in your home; The goal is to spread the risk of suffering a loss among a larger number of people. Essentially, we each contractually pay into a shared savings account. In the event of a fire, the burden of recovering from this fire is paid for by the shared account. The insurance company would rather it be said that you pay a premium in exchange for the company assuming the risk rather than you. This is not the case; effectively we are insuring each other against fire, theft, car accidents, flood, dog bites, and the like. So what does the insurance company actually do?

Well, the insurance company takes all that premium money and invests it. Then they make profits off the interest. They don’t really provide any sort of service. They actually sell us all our own money back to us at a profit. I call that a “moral hazard”.

To make matters worse, excepting legislation to protect the consumer (gee, wonder why that had to happen), the insurer is the arbiter of who gets insured, at what rate, and what benefits they are entitled to should a claim be made. This offers the insurance company the opportunity to control risk. You can see the power of abuse inherent in such an oversight of the basic function of insurance when you consider the pre-existing condition exclusions that are at the center of our national health care debate. This is another great example of a real “moral hazard”, and its not you and I failing to lock a door.

Allowing ANY exclusion or variance based on social characteristics (high theft neighborhoods have higher home and car insurance premiums for example) does not properly serve the interest of the consumer and is itself a near-certain moral hazard. Sure, if my home costs 2,000,000 to replace and yours costs 95,000, I would expect to have a proportional premium. Allowing geography to play into it, however, is punitive and a disservice.

Taking away the ability of an insurance company to assess risk, however, removes all purpose from the enterprise. Insurance companies, unlike other businesses, cannot control the supply of their service (Blue Cross can’t add more doctors to Summa) or otherwise add value. Instead, they must either reduce the quality of the actual service provided to the consumer (HMO’s and “Recommended Collision Repair Centers) or take advantage of statistical (but not certain) data about the social and behavioral characteristics of certain consumers. Both, clearly, are ripe for hazard of the moral kind.

All this makes insurance a unique “product” that’s very nature renders it unsuitable as a private enterprise. If being in the business of making money off the fact that suffering and misery WILL happen, but maybe to somebody else, isn’t a moral hazard, I don’t know what is.

I think my feelings on illegal immigration have at last reached critical mass. Arizona’s new social travesty masquerading as a Law is akin to punching Lady Liberty in the bread box. I am ashamed to share a nationality with these people.

No illegal immigrants are taking jobs from “us”. There is no “us” and “them”. There are millions of PEOPLE living here, fancy papers and skin color aside, that work, go to school, buy food, see movies, mow the grass, raise children, and even pay taxes. These PEOPLE are US.

If the good citizens of Arizona were really interested in curtailing immigration they would rally federal support for accountability of American enterprises operating in Mexico. They would urge Congress to enforce a minimum wage on those companies and insist they honour environmental laws. But that’s not what its about.

Hiding behind the noble banter of “Rule of Law” and “Illegal” lurks the insidious secret of the right: They hate these brown bastards. Pure and simple.

This law doesn’t just compel Arizona Police to ferret out working class people and treat them as criminals. If that’s all they were after they already had that power available. Rather, it gives not only the power but the obligation to demand proof of citizenship “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States”. Guess what guys, they sure ain’t going to reasonably suspect Little Johnny Irish of being here illegally. That honour goes to the brown people of Arizona; apparently automatically guilty, and required to prove themselves innocent.

I’m sure that this law will not last long, as it violates the Constitution(Article 1, Section 8, supported by numerous Supreme Court cases as giving Congress the power to govern entry into the country). The real issue here is how misled the whole thing is and how disheartening it is to watch what are otherwise good people succumb to hate.

I propose a new law that will empower all people. It is called the Health Care Reform Amendment Act 2010 and will henceforth be called The Law, with all the weight and profundity so implied.

Past reforms have proposed ridiculous ideas such as giving all people free health care managed by the government, while others have proposed forcing individuals to buy health care. These are all ridiculous and untenable. How can one imagine a resource distribution model that circumvents the market place? I call such nonsense flatly un-American. This is, above all things, a deeply principled nation after all.

I propose a new free market approach. First, company HR departments will be prohibited from buying insurance for their employees. This will empower individuals to research and purchase insurance based on it’s merits and price.

Second, we will circumvent the Hippocratic Oath by prohibiting individuals from going to the hospital if they do not have insurance. It will now be a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment.

This will empower individuals to make their own decisions about healthcare. Smart, shrewd individuals will be rewarded, while those who make bad decisions will be punished with death in the street at the scene of a car accident. More important than rewarding good decisions, The Law must assuredly punish bad ones. Its the American way.

These changes are necessary America. Without them, we will continue to give away health care and promote moral hazard in it’s most dastardly form and individuals will be crushed under the force of bureaucracy and government. I am sure you all agree no fate is worse than that dealt at the hands of government; even an identical or markedly worse fate at the whim of the American privateer.